D&D General XP Awards for -- what????

[AbdulAlhazred]

In 4e D&D, the award of XP correlates, more-or-less, to "units" of serious play. Combat enounters earn XP based on foes defeated. Non-combat encounters (ie skill challenges) earn XP based on complexity, whether successful or unsuccessful. Very roughly, these correlate to one-tenth of a level of XP per hour or so of play. The DMG2 adds a further XP category, of the same amount of XP per hour of engaged-but-non-encounter-roleplay.

There are also XP awards for achieving quests, which will generally be about one fifth of the total earned. So it ends up being around 3 or 4 sessions of play per level - depending on session length, seriousness of play, etc.

If I was to run 4e in a sustained fashion again, I think I would not bother counting XP and just award a level per 3 or so sessions, in consultation with the players.

Yeah, I gave XP at first, but it seemed somewhat pointless. I mean, why not just count up encounter equivalents and grant a level when the count reaches 10? Then we just kind of eyeballed things and added levels when we felt like it. Sometimes we did it faster, sometimes a bit slower.

Now with HoML, you just level up when you, fictionally, achieve access to a boon that is appropriate to increase the power of your character. The Priest goes to The Altar of The Defenders of Faith (which is a quest essentially) and acquires the boon Defender of Faith and becomes level N+1. Not all boons need be 'major' ones that increase your level either, so the 4e-like major/minor quest distinction is retained.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not an experiment. It's a long established industry standard.

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm still shocking the monkey and giving treat in order to 'train' them and I'm not okay with that.

 

[Campbell]

From my perspective if you are going to use XP/leveling as a pacing rather than reward mechanism you should build some other sort of feedback loop / reward system into the game. This is pretty much what L5R 5e and Vampire 5th Edition do with their Void Point / Willpower feedback loops.

 

[kenada]

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm still shocking the monkey and giving treat in order to 'train' them and I'm not okay with that.

You’re not okay with reward structures in games?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From my perspective if you are going to use XP/leveling as a pacing rather than reward mechanism you should build some other sort of feedback loop / reward system into the game. This is pretty much what L5R 5e and Vampire 5th Edition do with their Void Point / Willpower feedback loops.

Well, I would derive that more from dramatic structure. Like, OK, you can dawdle around and do nothing, but then Godzilla is going to eat Tokyo.

 

[Lanefan]

You’re not okay with reward structures in games?

Even more so, reward structures that actually reward the PCs that actually do stuff rather than those who don't, or who hang back, or who aren't there.

Note for repeated emphasis - PCs, not players. If you're there as a player but your character does nothing in an encounter, no xp for your PC for that encounter. Flip side: if you're not there but your character still does stuff, xp for your PC.

If the PCs all start at the same level but through play some advance faster than others, then so be it. Doesn't bother me if they're not all the same level - never mind my game has level drain (and, sometimes, sudden level gain!) in it.

 

[kenada]

Even more so, reward structures that actually reward the PCs that actually do stuff rather than those who don't, or who hang back, or who aren't there.

Note for repeated emphasis - PCs, not players. If you're there as a player but your character does nothing in an encounter, no xp for your PC for that encounter. Flip side: if you're not there but your character still does stuff, xp for your PC.

If the PCs all start at the same level but through play some advance faster than others, then so be it. Doesn't bother me if they're not all the same level - never mind my game has level drain (and, sometimes, sudden level gain!) in it.

Are you flexible about approaches? If the group gets jumped by bandits, but they manage to talk their way out of it, do they still get XP? Is it limited to just those who did the talking?

For me, I’m fine if PCs don’t advance in lockstep with each other because the game I run isn’t about fighting against balanced encounters. I do have a “catch up” mechanic, but that’s because I’m trying to emulate how advancement in B/X works. B/X uses exponential tables. In B/X, if I die and come in at 1st level while the party is 6th, by the time they get to 7th, I’ll have caught back up to 6th. I prefer standardized XP awards*, so I fake that “catch up” aspect by giving double XP to those below the median level.

---

* 3 XP for completing either or both of your goals, 1 XP for each goal you help someone else to complete, 3 XP when the group completes its goal. Gaining a new level requires spending XP equal to that level times five.

 

[Xamnam]

I use XP, because I like to break down at the end of the session how all of their various actions contributed to their overall progression. For that reason, I've used all of the options listed, except for roleplaying. That one is too personal to apply to the group, and also I don't know that I'd feel great about making that aspect of the game mechanically incentivized, not even to mention fighting my own bias as to what "good/reward worthy" roleplay is. That's the domain of inspiration for me, and I still feel weird sometimes about how I dole that out.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You’re not okay with reward structures in games?

I'm not okay with using them to program people.

 

[Manbearcat]

That has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

I'm still shocking the monkey and giving treat in order to 'train' them and I'm not okay with that.

You’re not okay with reward structures in games?

Yeah, this one is a bit difficult to parse in light of what animal life is broadly, what social life is with intelligent animals that possess brains with executive function and and integrated endocrine system, and how games operate for these creatures. Life for these creatures effectively is an Operant Conditioning Chamber and games with any sort of consequential, layered decision-making can’t help but plug directly into that.

And there is deft game design that makes that phenomenon multivariate in processing and the direction of the flow of influence. System “programming” players to onboard an approach. Players then having their say on content (like “what is the thematic content of this xp/reward trigger” or “I’m going to escalate or de-escalate a situation or reorient entirely based on some matrix of reward parameter and juice ain’t worth the squeeze parameter”) and that feeding back into system which then “programs” (via uptake of those player flags and their responsibilities via system) the GM to frame particular types (theme/premise/challenge) of conflict. And the feedback loop flow might reverse or manifest subtly differently.

Regardless, its a big, complex, coherent and functional if designed and implemented correctly, Operant Conditioning Chamber where multiple parties (players, GM, system) all have their say. Its somewhat of a Platonic (and transparent) Ideal of the clustereff relationship of these things in human social systems (regardless of scale)!